220 40003 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mihailnajdenov@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: What do we want from named paramaters Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 105 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <1534441498.3721109.1476442920.71D445BF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <73b10960-8c70-419a-b317-2d78ec46a1d7@isocpp.org> <8e2b5a47-f22b-4cd6-ba68-9802bfff7bc1@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_375_1830773375.1535137436023" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1535137312 32189 195.159.176.226 (24 Aug 2018 19:01:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 19:01:52 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUJ3A7GRAPRBHFNQHOAKGQEXX7VEFI@isocpp.org Fri Aug 24 21:01:48 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yw1-f72.google.com ([209.85.161.72]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ftHLA-0008Ft-8z for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:01:48 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yw1-f72.google.com with SMTP id g126-v6sf5027878ywg.20 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Oiqj3D3eqzL5o8OslY7oTJBbbh17S+s1Xoh0wWjrlY0=; b=0vyrPVE1vTg+lxuDSzcYP7eCLK8TvwQXMbNbOqCwfSlVVGYDCWuALQMHDg7mOLv78U 3sCRjMyo3hT1UdtCdHz6+88j3geEdtJzoo+MAkh+fsTZYeVvORqP3PSyf+4l4czv433V hXTwMygT+Jn6bWQpyVF4eysGEbohKR+sTL0IsUQL8veNdf0vSAltGmH7LZukT2ZngiVi 8chdoYSftphhP2s0tifXC8rUj5WIS7hEvIruW+5/5pOIjLsoIYWdlgLEMaBIJfhIkq3g DTNfmbK2LltjxB4IepngFFHVnWohJL7DBMJ+8yaOMmjwW3YKT4tK5wywTIJf5L+P2ds/ No+w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Oiqj3D3eqzL5o8OslY7oTJBbbh17S+s1Xoh0wWjrlY0=; b=e9SJt5Kk1kr+ZtKMB3T5lSP15j5BHm4cnaK52ZXRxjZUGPkPbdKW+7u++1OpYmXRUk MH+Kj/SPzYIsDZxKAGlQZEPZQ7CD1CUzvHNCUuTDr89qyjBf5CHYWmbATPCMF0iA5rAF ncgHNn6zkF/up6QSJJqIfNVDRKxXe2jWDnm4yqwCvqKWX77SvuiHYdbSlHgE2XD9NEZl t52O8BQsaSW4pUeo5oamafVfh/KQ6ffUMk6dVABh3x4rKCVRRstOKHeEACS0peBuTPfS wqg4V6pIYlmM6hlAyrkLtVvvE5K7ieEeESKt1Y7wFjoRq69Cw6M3rVyxpmL1zA2j8q8k +udA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Oiqj3D3eqzL5o8OslY7oTJBbbh17S+s1Xoh0wWjrlY0=; b=g8Zhg6JofJHY54N8eXPpywsdniOVlqoVcxtBMbR3UNEJWHj6bo7mF6GjiroagL7nMp sYvsDVqHOMQMqiyQmDuWqwkGSK2l+29liBAf9FqyX7Jyj9IyUnustJ9zrQWkijuphxD1 dozeAo2L3ejmDNDIut2kpfZaU0N4qHrFVJvGl6eFWfxkMMuK64lHmFafJMLWZddCmI2t Ed8mYCFLVw44fxiGhf4rvsj6D7Yj3Y1lrk/y/x3YdkGQOrlYx11bq7HU7BSIp+M6pYdg 9hRDqK1E4XpYM55kTy+eljTsAB3L8fuMv+0I3VMm6H61tafefI4HpLA4yjZ7/jhhyNbv 0jDg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CLJuzBPy1FIkIfsE0IY1V5QXEWIWUTOHB3qUfPr57vfcs9N6U6 Qmf+SQ9RUCqMO3DOy1ZNYMANZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdblMZwqwCVqMv6Q8RQ2IT5E7gp1aptAkNnF6qJXwx8u21TuZX/yYF9sq0I/8b70bEQh+lRVFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e253:: with SMTP id l80-v6mr995087ywe.78.1535137438324; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a0d:ee84:: with SMTP id x126-v6ls1124060ywe.41.gmail; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ed04:: with SMTP id w4-v6mr30663ywe.1.1535137436629; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 12:03:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: MihailNajdenov@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:40003 Archived-At: ------=_Part_375_1830773375.1535137436023 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_376_1333868902.1535137436023" ------=_Part_376_1333868902.1535137436023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 3:20:34 PM UTC+3, Dejan Milosavljevic wrote: > > Lets start wit very small list. > > 1. Declaration > 1.1 No changes. Remain as is. > 1.X Add Your preferences here > 1.Y and here ... > > 2. Call > 2.1 Dot style > Declaration: void f( int a, int b ); > Call: f( .a=1, .b=2 ); > 2.X Add Your preferences here > 2.Y and here ... > My opinion is: 1.1 and 2.1. > > Extend this list with one line examples. > Do not explain why is something wrong and another is right. > We should move away from "no changes to the declaration" if we are to make any progress: What I have established, having had discussions about named arguments > on multiple occasions, > is that the following pain points are important: > 1) it needs to be an opt-in for the author of a library, so no > automagic naming. Some library > authors do not want users relying on names that the library author > didn't expect them to rely > on, in order to avoid breakage that wasn't considered beforehand. > That aside, it seems so far the weak names are the only ones desired. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/b3fd1d1d-2637-4ce3-8ad2-01b81e17b189%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_376_1333868902.1535137436023 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 3:20:34 PM UTC+3, De= jan Milosavljevic wrote:
Lets start wit very small list.

1.= Declaration
1.1 No changes. Remain as is.
1.X Add Your preferences h= ere
1.Y and here ...

2. Call
2.1 Dot style
=C2=A0=C2=A0 De= claration: void f( int a, int b );
=C2=A0=C2=A0 Call:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 f( .a=3D1, .b=3D2 );
2.X Add Your preferences here2.Y and here ...

My opinion is: 1.1 and 2.1.

<= div>Extend this list with one line examples.
Do not explain why i= s something wrong and another is right.

We should move away from "no changes to the declaration"= if we are to make any progress:

What I have established, having had discussions about name= d arguments
on multiple occasions,
is that the following pain point= s are important:
1) it needs to be an opt-in for the author of a= library, so no
automagic naming. Some library
authors do not want = users relying on names that the library author
didn't expect them t= o rely
on, in order to avoid breakage that wasn't considered before= hand.


That = aside, it seems so far the weak names are the only ones desired.=C2=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/b3fd1d1d-2637-4ce3-8ad2-01b81e17b189= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_376_1333868902.1535137436023-- ------=_Part_375_1830773375.1535137436023-- .